Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Ramaiah @ C.N. Ramamurthy, S/o. Late Deppedar Narasimhaiah – Appellant
Versus
N. K. Kotappa, S/o. Late Kote Narasimhaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. procedural history and evidence (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments raised regarding contract performance (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's analysis of the performance contract (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. dismissal of the regular second appeal (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2014 passed in R.A.No.70 of 2012 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur ('First Appellate Court' for short).
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants were defendants No.1 to 3, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and other respondents were the other defendants.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of ₹1,20,000/- and
The defendants bear the burden to prove hardship in a specific performance contract; failure to do so invalidates dismissing the plaintiff's suit regardless of the trial court's findings.
The Court held that failure to issue legal notice prior to filing suit does not preclude the plaintiffs' entitlement to specific performance, especially given the absence of counters from defendants.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a party seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract within the stipulated period, and a....
The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, and failure to do so, along with undue hardship to defendants, can preclude specific performance.
The court affirmed that a plaintiff must prove readiness to perform a contract for specific performance, while a defendant's claims of hardship must be substantiated with evidence.
Specific performance – Relief of specific performance is equitable remedy – Plaintiff have to necessarily show their readiness and willingness in performing their part of contract from date of agreem....
Agreement of sale is unenforceable where defendants had no absolute right and title over suit schedule property to sell the same and plaintiff was aware of same.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
